How “Legal” Are Seed Libraries?(postcarbon.org)
postcarbon.org
How “Legal” Are Seed Libraries?
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/2339769-just-how-legal-are-seed-libraries
12 comments
To me it didn't sound like lobbying, but laws that didn't take into account that people might give away seeds for free. It's a good law for knowing that the seeds you buy are good quality, but poor for centralized community seed exchanges, which are a pretty new thing. In the past you would just go to your neighbor and get some seeds (which is still legal).
But it would have made it illegal for you neighbour to sell you some seeds.
This is actually a good, simple example of a common side effect of regulating many industries. The quality or safety requirements seem reasonable and often just good practice to existing operators. For new operators, especially those doing things differently (like running a free library) it can be a serious hurdle.
This is actually a good, simple example of a common side effect of regulating many industries. The quality or safety requirements seem reasonable and often just good practice to existing operators. For new operators, especially those doing things differently (like running a free library) it can be a serious hurdle.
Lobbyists often write the laws http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620... Google for many more examples.
I think he talks not about laws themselves but overzealous unreasonable enforcement, that is a result of lobbying
It's not legal to get seeds from your neighbor if your neighbor is using seeds with any patented genes (a la Monsanto Soy beans). In fact, if seeds from your neighbor's field are blown over by the wind to your field, and you harvest those, you can be sued for patent infringement. Monsanto has done this and won. They even (in)famously hired Academi (nee Xe nee Blackwater) to find 'patent violators'.
> In fact, if seeds from your neighbor's field are blown over by the wind to your field, and you harvest those, you can be sued for patent infringement
I don't like Monsanto, but nothing I've read indicates this alone is sufficient to lose a lawsuit. In the case I assume you're referring to, the farmer didn't lose because harvested a few plants that had blown into his field. He lost because he then killed off his non-resistant plants with Roundup, intentionally collected the seeds from the remaining Monsanto plants, and replanted his entire field with them the next year.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index....
I don't like Monsanto, but nothing I've read indicates this alone is sufficient to lose a lawsuit. In the case I assume you're referring to, the farmer didn't lose because harvested a few plants that had blown into his field. He lost because he then killed off his non-resistant plants with Roundup, intentionally collected the seeds from the remaining Monsanto plants, and replanted his entire field with them the next year.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index....
>Monsanto has done this and won.
Well that's just not true.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
Well that's just not true.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
According to your link, seeds from Schmeiser's neighbor's field were blown into his field by the wind, he harvested them, and was successfully sued for patent infringement. So everything your parent comment stated was correct.
There is an element omitted, which was that he harvested those seeds (in accordance with his established business practice of keeping seeds from his field) in the knowledge that they were Roundup resistant, since he had sprayed his field with Roundup to see what would happen, and what happened was some of his wheat lived.
Roundup isn't patented or controlled in any way. So what would happen if I took up the hobby of growing a few patches of wheat every year and spraying them with Roundup? Over time, the magic of selection should produce Roundup-resistant wheat, which would be free of any Monsanto influence. Would I be violating Monsanto's IP?
If you think I wouldn't be violating Monsanto's IP by growing, and selecting, my own Roundup-resistant wheat, take note that Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe myself doing in the thought experiment.
There is an element omitted, which was that he harvested those seeds (in accordance with his established business practice of keeping seeds from his field) in the knowledge that they were Roundup resistant, since he had sprayed his field with Roundup to see what would happen, and what happened was some of his wheat lived.
Roundup isn't patented or controlled in any way. So what would happen if I took up the hobby of growing a few patches of wheat every year and spraying them with Roundup? Over time, the magic of selection should produce Roundup-resistant wheat, which would be free of any Monsanto influence. Would I be violating Monsanto's IP?
If you think I wouldn't be violating Monsanto's IP by growing, and selecting, my own Roundup-resistant wheat, take note that Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe myself doing in the thought experiment.
He wasn't sued because the seeds blew into his yard. He was sued because he collected the seeds and grew nothing but those seeds, even knowing what they were.
>Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe
Yes he did. He didn't develop his own Roundup resistant seeds, he grabbed them from Mansanto plants.
>the magic of selection
It doesn't work like that. What you would end up with is years of nothing but dead plants until you get bored and forget about it.
I don't want to defend Mansanto, but you're being ridiculous. This argument is repeated over and over and it's just not true.
>Schmeiser didn't do anything I didn't describe
Yes he did. He didn't develop his own Roundup resistant seeds, he grabbed them from Mansanto plants.
>the magic of selection
It doesn't work like that. What you would end up with is years of nothing but dead plants until you get bored and forget about it.
I don't want to defend Mansanto, but you're being ridiculous. This argument is repeated over and over and it's just not true.
Sorry? That is precisely how selection works. Ever heard of herbicide-resistant weeds? Desirable crops can develop resistance the same way weeds do (that is, by coincidence).
The additional "action" you ascribe to Schmeiser is purely metaphysical. In the thought experiment where I grow wheat as a hobby, I do the following:
There are two things we can say about Schmeiser:
1. Schmeiser took steps 1-3 above.
2. Schmeiser didn't do anything other than steps 1-3 above.
There was reason to believe that they'd work for him faster than they would work for me. But all of his actions were unquestionably above-board. What produced the ruling against him wasn't anything he did -- it was something his neighbor did.
Consider a different scenario. Schmeiser, the eccentric farmer, decides to devote a patch of his land to independently developing Roundup-resistant wheat. He does exactly what I described, seeing little success. Three years later, his neighbor starts purchasing and planting Roundup-ready wheat. Schmeiser continues to do the same thing he's been doing for three years. Is it now illegal?
The additional "action" you ascribe to Schmeiser is purely metaphysical. In the thought experiment where I grow wheat as a hobby, I do the following:
1. Purchase, and grow, wheat seeds, not from Monsanto.
2. Spray my wheat with freely-available Roundup.
3. Harvest and replant whatever happens to survive.
4. Purchase additional non-Monsanto wheat in the case where I don't get any seeds in step (3).
There are two things we can say about Schmeiser:
1. Schmeiser took steps 1-3 above.
2. Schmeiser didn't do anything other than steps 1-3 above.
There was reason to believe that they'd work for him faster than they would work for me. But all of his actions were unquestionably above-board. What produced the ruling against him wasn't anything he did -- it was something his neighbor did.
Consider a different scenario. Schmeiser, the eccentric farmer, decides to devote a patch of his land to independently developing Roundup-resistant wheat. He does exactly what I described, seeing little success. Three years later, his neighbor starts purchasing and planting Roundup-ready wheat. Schmeiser continues to do the same thing he's been doing for three years. Is it now illegal?
>That is precisely how selection works. Ever heard of herbicide-resistant weeds?
And if you want to bet your farm on you being the one to magically find Roundup resistant wheat, you go right ahead. But no farmer is going to do that. and Schmeiser certainly didn't.
You want to argue, go argue with the judge who heard all of the facts. But please, don't spread false information like "Monsanto sues farmers for accidents". It's not true.
And if you want to bet your farm on you being the one to magically find Roundup resistant wheat, you go right ahead. But no farmer is going to do that. and Schmeiser certainly didn't.
You want to argue, go argue with the judge who heard all of the facts. But please, don't spread false information like "Monsanto sues farmers for accidents". It's not true.
You seem to have reworded "Monsanto will sue you for your neighbor's pollen blowing into your field" into "Monsanto will sue you for accidents". We know they didn't sue him for using Roundup, because Roundup isn't controlled (rather, it's controlled in the normal way, by charging money for it). We know they didn't sue him for harvesting and replanting his own wheat, because, again, that's legal.
Had he been doing that, he'd probably have had a more defendable case. In reality, it's patently clear that he sprayed them with roundup to find the roundup resistant wheat that he strongly suspected was present in his field to avoid having to purchase the product.
So......
He had Roundup-ready wheat in his field legally.
He legally sprayed it with Roundup.
He legally collected seeds from his own wheat.
He legally planted seeds that he owned legitimately.
But it all works out to be illegal because he's a bad person? Why would whether it's OK to do something depend on whether you've done it before?
He had Roundup-ready wheat in his field legally.
He legally sprayed it with Roundup.
He legally collected seeds from his own wheat.
He legally planted seeds that he owned legitimately.
But it all works out to be illegal because he's a bad person? Why would whether it's OK to do something depend on whether you've done it before?
Previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5378008
from kevinpet: "The Monsanto patents are for the method of using a particular herbicide in combination with the modified plant seeds.... Has Monsanto ever sued anyone who was not trying to use the combination of the GMO crops and the herbicide they are tolerant to?"
from tptacek: "the behavior Monsanto pursues is planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds and then spraying them with glyphosphate-based ("Roundup") herbicides. You can spray Roundup without a patent license. You can probably plant RR crops without a license. But if you do both (commercially, at least), Monsanto sues. The point of RR seeds is that they resist Roundup, which is a broad-spectrum herbicide that will kill non-RR crops. In the commercial suits, it becomes tricky to argue that you planted RR crops unwittingly when you are later shown to have sprayed them with an herbicide that would have certainly ruined your harvest but for inbred RR resistance."
There are a lot of actions that, if we described the component behaviors, would sound legitimate -- but taken in aggregate are clearly wrong. It's legal to be in the forest and it's legal to discharge a firearm, but it becomes illegal if you knowingly target a person in the forest with that firearm. It's legal to change your clothes and wear a fake beard, and normally legal to go into a grocery store, but it becomes illegal if you disguise yourself to circumvent a store ban. And it's legal to have RR seeds in your field and it's legal to spray roundup, but it becomes illegal if you intentionally try to circumvent Monsanto's patents by using roundup to isolate their seeds and then intentionally replant those so that you'll be able to use roundup on your crops without destroying your crops and without paying the standard fee.
from kevinpet: "The Monsanto patents are for the method of using a particular herbicide in combination with the modified plant seeds.... Has Monsanto ever sued anyone who was not trying to use the combination of the GMO crops and the herbicide they are tolerant to?"
from tptacek: "the behavior Monsanto pursues is planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds and then spraying them with glyphosphate-based ("Roundup") herbicides. You can spray Roundup without a patent license. You can probably plant RR crops without a license. But if you do both (commercially, at least), Monsanto sues. The point of RR seeds is that they resist Roundup, which is a broad-spectrum herbicide that will kill non-RR crops. In the commercial suits, it becomes tricky to argue that you planted RR crops unwittingly when you are later shown to have sprayed them with an herbicide that would have certainly ruined your harvest but for inbred RR resistance."
There are a lot of actions that, if we described the component behaviors, would sound legitimate -- but taken in aggregate are clearly wrong. It's legal to be in the forest and it's legal to discharge a firearm, but it becomes illegal if you knowingly target a person in the forest with that firearm. It's legal to change your clothes and wear a fake beard, and normally legal to go into a grocery store, but it becomes illegal if you disguise yourself to circumvent a store ban. And it's legal to have RR seeds in your field and it's legal to spray roundup, but it becomes illegal if you intentionally try to circumvent Monsanto's patents by using roundup to isolate their seeds and then intentionally replant those so that you'll be able to use roundup on your crops without destroying your crops and without paying the standard fee.
> It's legal to be in the forest and it's legal to discharge a firearm, but it becomes illegal if you knowingly target a person in the forest with that firearm.
This isn't a good example; it's not legal to hit the other person whether you're in the forest or not. If you mean targeting but missing, that's also illegal no matter where you are, but hard to punish without good evidence of malice (again, no matter where you are). There's an element of the offense which is (a) clearly not included under "be in the forest" or "discharge a firearm" (for example, if I was Superman and I just threw a bullet into someone at speed, that would be just as illegal as using a gun to do it), and (b) definitely illegal no matter the context.
> It's legal to change your clothes and wear a fake beard, and normally legal to go into a grocery store, but it becomes illegal if you disguise yourself to circumvent a store ban.
I don't really object to this example, though if the law is as described I object to that. What recourse does the store have? Is disguising yourself actually part of the offense, or is the offense purely that you entered the store?
This isn't a good example; it's not legal to hit the other person whether you're in the forest or not. If you mean targeting but missing, that's also illegal no matter where you are, but hard to punish without good evidence of malice (again, no matter where you are). There's an element of the offense which is (a) clearly not included under "be in the forest" or "discharge a firearm" (for example, if I was Superman and I just threw a bullet into someone at speed, that would be just as illegal as using a gun to do it), and (b) definitely illegal no matter the context.
> It's legal to change your clothes and wear a fake beard, and normally legal to go into a grocery store, but it becomes illegal if you disguise yourself to circumvent a store ban.
I don't really object to this example, though if the law is as described I object to that. What recourse does the store have? Is disguising yourself actually part of the offense, or is the offense purely that you entered the store?
disguising yourself in order to attempt to circumvent the ban would be an additional offense.
Though the point is less the examples and more the principle: that an offense can be made up of multiple inoffensive-sounding parts which are only problematic when taken together.
Though the point is less the examples and more the principle: that an offense can be made up of multiple inoffensive-sounding parts which are only problematic when taken together.
Laws that increase the barrier of entry to a particular market benefit the existing businesses in that market.
Still doesn't mean the law was written with the express purpose of keeping seed trades down.
Correct. This law sounds like it was written by lobbyists, but it may not have been.
If your neighbor's seeds are from Monsanto I don't think it's legal.
Agribusiness doesn't really care if some hippies are trading heirloom rutabaga seeds. This doesn't cost the companies anything, and they likely can't extort (even with the help of regulations) any significant money from the hippies.
This is "bureaucracy gone wild". It was bad before, but now we'd been having these chumps brainstorm Hollywood thriller movie plots for 10 years on how Osama bin Laden might destroy Hawaii's pineapple industry by importing hummingbirds...
And so of course they're paranoid of little old ladies trading tomato seeds at a public library. Nevermind that the amount of seeds transferred/grown in this fashion can only be the tiniest fraction of the seeds blowing around in the wind and germinating naturally... by god their going to save us in true movie action hero fashion. By disallowing seed trading among hobbyist gardeners.
This is "bureaucracy gone wild". It was bad before, but now we'd been having these chumps brainstorm Hollywood thriller movie plots for 10 years on how Osama bin Laden might destroy Hawaii's pineapple industry by importing hummingbirds...
And so of course they're paranoid of little old ladies trading tomato seeds at a public library. Nevermind that the amount of seeds transferred/grown in this fashion can only be the tiniest fraction of the seeds blowing around in the wind and germinating naturally... by god their going to save us in true movie action hero fashion. By disallowing seed trading among hobbyist gardeners.
Related: water rights trading: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/08/us-water-idUSTRE77...
from 2013
Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world's water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domina...
Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world's water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestle_water_supply_domina...
As much as I hate to say this, but I almost agree that there will need to be some form of oversight into how water is obtained from natural sources and then distributed. You can see all of the crazy issues going on right now in California due to the current drought. However, I also see water as a basic human right, and should not restrict anyones access to it, but these topics get very murky when we start discussing the needs of the many for sustenance, and the needs of the many for I want my lawn to be green or I want to bottle it and resell it.
There is already extensive oversight. There are places where homeowners don't have the right to the rain that falls on their roof. There are things like the Great Lakes Compact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact
There are rules governing what a waste water treatment plant can output (especially around things like phosphorus). On a river, one town's waste water is the next town's source water.
New York City owns large tracts of land to help protect its water supply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_syst...
http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/
There are also usually pretty strict laws in force anywhere surface water is used for drinking water (you see watershed signs for that).
Of course new and changing interests will require lots of changes to the way the oversight it done, and it anyway isn't exactly perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact
There are rules governing what a waste water treatment plant can output (especially around things like phosphorus). On a river, one town's waste water is the next town's source water.
New York City owns large tracts of land to help protect its water supply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_water_supply_syst...
http://www.pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/
There are also usually pretty strict laws in force anywhere surface water is used for drinking water (you see watershed signs for that).
Of course new and changing interests will require lots of changes to the way the oversight it done, and it anyway isn't exactly perfect.
Here's another funny regulation effect from California:
http://www.newser.com/story/191142/couple-could-be-fined-500...
If you don't water you lawn, you're fined. If you do, you're fined.
And here's an example of a guy going to jail for having a rainwater pool on their property:
http://www.realfarmacy.com/oregon-man-sent-to-jail-for-catch...
If you don't water you lawn, you're fined. If you do, you're fined.
And here's an example of a guy going to jail for having a rainwater pool on their property:
http://www.realfarmacy.com/oregon-man-sent-to-jail-for-catch...
> If you don't water you lawn, you're fined. If you do, you're fined.
And a state law trumps a Homeowner's Association (it's normally even written into the contract). The Association is liable for attempting to enforce something that violates state law.
> And here's an example of a guy going to jail for having a rainwater pool on their property
Um, IIRC, the details of that case are that the dude actually build enormous reservoirs. We're not talking a couple barrels, we're talking something like 3 ponds.
And a state law trumps a Homeowner's Association (it's normally even written into the contract). The Association is liable for attempting to enforce something that violates state law.
> And here's an example of a guy going to jail for having a rainwater pool on their property
Um, IIRC, the details of that case are that the dude actually build enormous reservoirs. We're not talking a couple barrels, we're talking something like 3 ponds.
It's the city which is trying to require him to water his lawn, not an HA.
...or more pertinently, I want to flood the desert to grow rice in the California central valley.
Whats next .. Air? Come on, this is just totalitarianism in another form. Control the worlds water, and you control the world - what more do you want to demonstrate this is a power grab by greedy fascists?
The main concern is that a company could come along and pump out all the water from an aquifer or lake that a village/community/town depends on and it would be perfectly legal because "it's my water too".
Privatizing the water supply should be heavily debated and the outcome should be what is best for citizens. No price-gouging, as low as possible price for water, etc.
Right now companies can dump chemicals into many public water sources even in the US because it's their water to use also. Industry and farms are the biggest users of water, normal people need to be protected from their abuse of the worlds finite fresh water supply.
If someone invented a machine that sucked air off the planet at a rate which actually threatened the worlds air supply, then yes, air should be regulated. In fact, it already is to some degree with anti-pollution laws.
Regulation and competition allow companies to exist, make a profit, and help citizens at the same time. Yes, some companies abuse their power but as long as government corruption is kept to a reasonable level then the government can step in and either make the company change (in numerous ways).
There would be a problem if a private company had a private military that was more powerful than the governments military, I think that is the plot of the next Call of Duty game...
Privatizing the water supply should be heavily debated and the outcome should be what is best for citizens. No price-gouging, as low as possible price for water, etc.
Right now companies can dump chemicals into many public water sources even in the US because it's their water to use also. Industry and farms are the biggest users of water, normal people need to be protected from their abuse of the worlds finite fresh water supply.
If someone invented a machine that sucked air off the planet at a rate which actually threatened the worlds air supply, then yes, air should be regulated. In fact, it already is to some degree with anti-pollution laws.
Regulation and competition allow companies to exist, make a profit, and help citizens at the same time. Yes, some companies abuse their power but as long as government corruption is kept to a reasonable level then the government can step in and either make the company change (in numerous ways).
There would be a problem if a private company had a private military that was more powerful than the governments military, I think that is the plot of the next Call of Duty game...
Water is a scarce resource in some places. Rationing water on a market is a reasonable solution. We do it for literally every other scarce resource. Food, oil, iron, etc.
Oh, I know, it 'needs to be managed' because its 'scarce'. Having lived in Los Angeles for a significant period of my life, I know exactly where 'water management for the people, by the people' leads us .. to desperation for some, prosperity for others.
Here's some of his thoughts on water for investors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEF...
And then his attempt at damage control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SEF...
And then his attempt at damage control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMA0_cLdeE
Water quality is already the subject of intense government regulation programs.
Testing by government regulators is how we knew that the water from Lake Erie was unsafe to drink on Ohio during the algae bloom a few weeks ago, for example.
In new construction (at least for public spaces) a water sample from the plumbing must pass chemical testing by the local government before it can be offered to the public.
Testing by government regulators is how we knew that the water from Lake Erie was unsafe to drink on Ohio during the algae bloom a few weeks ago, for example.
In new construction (at least for public spaces) a water sample from the plumbing must pass chemical testing by the local government before it can be offered to the public.
you have probably never watched this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=nv_sr_1
I think this is crazy that people are prohibited from giving away things that belong to them - and to avoid opening a can of worms, we're not even talking about drugs or something like that - because of bunch of government busybodies worrying about imaginary dangers that never happened like terrorists putting I don't even know what in the seeds.
I wonder what if they would one day discover that there are millions of people on internet giving away code which is then being used in most critical infrastructure projects. By their logic, they should ban all open-source projects until they undergo rigorous (and hugely expensive) compliance testing. And cyber-terrorism is a real threat too! So I hope they don't read HN, would not want to give them any ideas...
I wonder what if they would one day discover that there are millions of people on internet giving away code which is then being used in most critical infrastructure projects. By their logic, they should ban all open-source projects until they undergo rigorous (and hugely expensive) compliance testing. And cyber-terrorism is a real threat too! So I hope they don't read HN, would not want to give them any ideas...
So I hope they don't read HN, would not want to give them any ideas...
Seriously, don't give the nanny-state, collectivist, big-gov, we-need-more-regulations crowd any more ammunition or ideas! That crowd of kooks do enough harm on their own, no need to help them.
Seriously, don't give the nanny-state, collectivist, big-gov, we-need-more-regulations crowd any more ammunition or ideas! That crowd of kooks do enough harm on their own, no need to help them.
There is the same problem in Europe, I think it has even already been posted in HN. I guess it's the same lobby that got success on both sides of the Atlantic.
http://www.saveourseeds.org/en/dossiers/eu-seed-regulation.h... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_Kokopelli
http://www.saveourseeds.org/en/dossiers/eu-seed-regulation.h... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_Kokopelli
> Agri-terrorism is a very, very real scenario
No it's not, especially in this scenario. Anyone who espouses this BS should be removed from their position.
No it's not, especially in this scenario. Anyone who espouses this BS should be removed from their position.
Has anyone commenting actually read the article? Giving away seeds isn't actually illegal. This is overzealous law enforcement and hopefully won't stand up in court.
The regulations for selling seeds may be unreasonable, but they are at least understandable.
The regulations for selling seeds may be unreasonable, but they are at least understandable.
So what's the BitTorrent equivalent of a seed library? (no pun intended, but amusingly apropos)
I've used round robin seed exchanges. There is one box that can have up to a hundred or more varieties of seeds. This gets sent to you via USPS, etc. You take what you can use and put something in that you'd like to share. When you're all finished, you seal up the box and send it to the address that is next on the round robin exchange list. You can acquire many different varieties of seed in this manner.
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/roundrobin/
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/roundrobin/
In the UK there is the Heritage Seed Library where people exchange rare seeds (possibly illegally, its unclear) http://old.gardenorganic.org.uk/hsl/
The equivalent would be a registry of people who will send you seeds if you send them a self addressed stamped envelope. Next season you'd be expected to donate back your extra seeds.
Unfortunately, black-market trading, lack of information and transparency, secrecy due to fear of overbearing authority - basically the way drug sales work.
Maybe gardening clubs where people exchange them, but the club "prohibits" it for legal reasons.
Here's Ohio's laws I don't have access to me email to login at work:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/907
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/907
Dumb question.. How long are seeds able to be preserved without a (reup?)
Depends heavily on how you store them.
Germination rates drop over time. Storing seeds improperly will increase that rate (i.e. even fewer seeds will sprout after a give time). You'll more-or-less always get a few to sprout, but you can't count on getting the vast majority to sprout unless you've stored the seeds properly.
If seeds are stored at high temperatures (room temp or above) in non-airtight containers, they typically have a "half-life" (non exact) of a year or two.
If you store the seeds in an airtight container in the freezer, they'll keep more or less indefinitely. (I'm guessing, but let's say a "half-life" of a decade or so.) There are instances of seeds preserved in permafrost sprouting after tens of thousands of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_viable_seed
All of this depends on the type of seed, as well. Take my numbers above with several grains of salt. They're from general experience growing up on a farm, not any definitive source.
Germination rates drop over time. Storing seeds improperly will increase that rate (i.e. even fewer seeds will sprout after a give time). You'll more-or-less always get a few to sprout, but you can't count on getting the vast majority to sprout unless you've stored the seeds properly.
If seeds are stored at high temperatures (room temp or above) in non-airtight containers, they typically have a "half-life" (non exact) of a year or two.
If you store the seeds in an airtight container in the freezer, they'll keep more or less indefinitely. (I'm guessing, but let's say a "half-life" of a decade or so.) There are instances of seeds preserved in permafrost sprouting after tens of thousands of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_viable_seed
All of this depends on the type of seed, as well. Take my numbers above with several grains of salt. They're from general experience growing up on a farm, not any definitive source.
To add to the other answers, it varies heavily by variety of vegetable. E.g. parsnip seeds, even when stored in airtight containers in the fridge, will rarely last beyond a year, whereas tomato seed viability can easily exceed 10+ years. I planted some 5 year old tomato seeds this season and had near 100% germination.
In theory thousands of years. http://www.non-hybrid-seeds.com/VAULTlongtermseedstoragesyst...
In practice you lose more over time so it greatly depends on how many you start with. However, you could encode the DNA in another format which effectively means unlimited shelf life assuming you a reasonably close species to work with.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news129
In practice you lose more over time so it greatly depends on how many you start with. However, you could encode the DNA in another format which effectively means unlimited shelf life assuming you a reasonably close species to work with.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news129
Another format would actually be a problem - finding a format that would be readable in 10K years is a huge challenge, since all current languages, semantic systems, etc. may be completely forgotten by then. Check out this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Interference_Task_Force
about trying to solve how to say "dangerous radiation" so people in distant future would understand. Not trivial task at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Interference_Task_Force
about trying to solve how to say "dangerous radiation" so people in distant future would understand. Not trivial task at all.
Persionaly, I suspect a scale model of a DNA strand + it's encoding would be a strong enough hint for any society capable of using that data to build a life form. As up you only need 4 symbols for the encoding. Then just repeat that at ever smaller scales.
The real issue is you need to encode a lot of data in a stable form for a long time for cheap enough someone would pay for it. Pluss, the cost of actually sequencing 10K+ plants * a few examples so you have some genetic diversity.
The real issue is you need to encode a lot of data in a stable form for a long time for cheap enough someone would pay for it. Pluss, the cost of actually sequencing 10K+ plants * a few examples so you have some genetic diversity.
I would assume you can tissue culture a seed well past when it's unlikely germinate as well.
Probably not. Seeds are live plants enclosed in several layers of protection to make them transportable and to avoid drying out. There are two reasons seeds don't germinate: (1) they are viable (still alive), but it's difficult to break dormancy -- to "wake up" the plant inside the seed and get it to start growing, and (2) the plant tissue inside the seed has died. Seeds that have been stored a long time usually don't germinate because of (2).
Tissue culture requires tissue that is alive. The live embryo is removed from the seed and placed on sterile media containing nutrients and hormones. The exact composition varies depend on the plant species / cultivar you are working with.
Tissue culture is useful as a last resort for breaking seed dormancy, but if the problem is that the plant tissue inside the seed has died, it will be no help.
Tissue culture requires tissue that is alive. The live embryo is removed from the seed and placed on sterile media containing nutrients and hormones. The exact composition varies depend on the plant species / cultivar you are working with.
Tissue culture is useful as a last resort for breaking seed dormancy, but if the problem is that the plant tissue inside the seed has died, it will be no help.
It depends on the storage conditions, etc. Could last for tens, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years in a few documented cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_bank
(Lack of) moisture is key to long term storage, even more than temperature, but it largely depends on species. Amaranth (pigweed) seeds have been known to sprout after 40+ years of laying out in nature.
Agree with the poster who states this is a case of bureaucracy gone wild. There are reasons the initial laws exist (insure consumers are buying viable seeds and that are the species represented), but hey... give some people a little power and they start finding ways to use it.
I honestly don't think "big agrobusiness" cares about backyard gardens. But I might be wrong.
Agree with the poster who states this is a case of bureaucracy gone wild. There are reasons the initial laws exist (insure consumers are buying viable seeds and that are the species represented), but hey... give some people a little power and they start finding ways to use it.
I honestly don't think "big agrobusiness" cares about backyard gardens. But I might be wrong.
Is regulated standards for foods pushed to the logical position from a bureaucratic standpoint, but mindbogglingly insane position from a biological one, that all inputs to the system must be on the official list of defined things, otherwise the entire process of insisting that we know what is going on falls down.
"After the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture cracked down on a community seed library, hundreds of seed libraries in the U.S. are suddenly wondering if they are breaking the law"
Sadly, the answer to this question these days is nearly always yes, no matter what you are doing. You are pretty much one overzealous act of selective enforcement away from federal crime. 3 felonies a day and all that yap. Do remember that sensationalist stories aside, its exceedingly unlikely to happen to you. Not that we shouldn't try to fix it, but its not worth worrying about to the point that it alters your daily life with paranoia.
Sadly, the answer to this question these days is nearly always yes, no matter what you are doing. You are pretty much one overzealous act of selective enforcement away from federal crime. 3 felonies a day and all that yap. Do remember that sensationalist stories aside, its exceedingly unlikely to happen to you. Not that we shouldn't try to fix it, but its not worth worrying about to the point that it alters your daily life with paranoia.
The fact that this is at all illegal is a testament to the shitty situation in the United States with regards to both intellectual property and food production. I'm ashamed of my country, and my state, because of this.
Can someone explain to me how you commit agri-terrorism with unregulated seeds? What is the government's argument for this?
Honestly reeks of agribusiness lobbying.
Seeds are a fundamental requirment for human existence and should be free to sell, save, use, give away.
Next thing you know water will cost $15.00 a gallon and only be sold through authorized sources like Monsanto and Coca-cola for "QUALITY CONTROL" purposes.